ghare:John Buck 41: This is getting really f*cking tiresome. We get it. Most Farkers and most Fark suits don't like guns. Can we move on? There must be a big boob thread out there waiting to be greenlit.

I like guns just fine. Reasonable restrictions on them are obviously necessary and constitutional, however.

Of course, in Australia, where after a mass shooting they banned certain guns, there has not been a mass shooting since.

And not one peep about all the medication he and other killer's were using when the shootings occurred. Fascinating, but let's not let facts get in the way. The goal is gun control. Ami right or ami right?

Huck And Molly Ziegler:Can't we just modify the Second Amendment a TINY bit? To where you're not allowed to own functioning crap that can kill a whole lot of people in 30 seconds? You can't hunt with it, you can't do meaningful target practice with it.

Well, there are already rules against such things: machine guns (full-auto and burst-fire guns) are already heavily restricted and are essentially never used in crime. Same thing with privately-owned artillery, grenades, rockets, etc. They exist and are owned privately, but they're relatively rare and expensive. The few people who own such things tend to be relatively wealthy collectors and not prone to criminal acts. As far as I know, it's not legal to hunt with machine guns. Even if it was, it'd be a bad idea for obvious reasons.

Pretty much everyone agrees that having restrictions on machine guns is a good idea. However, essentially all the proposed gun-control laws would restrict commonly available civilian-legal firearms that happen to look like military firearms but are not actually military firearms nor machine guns.

The most popular action for civilian firearms is semi-auto: the gun fires one shot (and only one shot) per pull of the trigger. Semi-auto guns are extremely common, and are used extensively for recreational shooting, competition, hunting, self-defense, and other perfectly lawful activities. Certain semi-auto guns like the AR-15 physically resemble their military cousin (the M16, in this case) but are functionally identical to other semi-auto guns on the market in that they only fire one shot per trigger pull and are not capable of full-auto or burst-fire modes. They are the single most popular selling rifle in the country because they're basically a "universal" gun that can be easily adapted to just about any role by replacing a few user-changeable parts: such rifles can be easily changed to fire .22LR or 9mm ammo for inexpensive training and target practice, with a .223 upper (the default for nearly all ARs) they're suitable for vermin control, small game hunting, and hunting of animals up to around deer size but its a bit anemic for anything larger. With a higher-caliber barrel like .308, they can be used for elk and larger game. With specialized uppers like .338 Lapua or .50 BMG they're suitable for long-range (1000yd) target shooting. Due to their ergonomics and ease of adjusting certain components, they're easily adaptable to shooters of various sizes and shapes.

They're extremely common in sport and competitions of all sorts, and are growing in popularity for hunting. They're durable, reliable, lightweight, rugged, accurate, and easy to maintain.

In regards to power or lethality, they're comparable in power to other similar guns: for example, they're essentially equal in terms of power and lethality to the popular Ruger Mini-14 "ranch rifle" that also fires the .223 cartridge. It's a fairly common misconception that this type of gun is somehow extra-lethal or otherwise more powerful than "other" guns, when this isn't actually the case. The gun may have a "military-style" appearance, but it's functionally the same as any other civilian-legal firearm.

In short: they're ideal for target practice, competition, and hunting and their popularity reflects this.

Are they used in crime? Yes, but rarely: out of the 12,000 or so homicides in the US last year, about 3.5% were committed with rifles of any kind with guns like the AR-15 making up an even smaller percentage. Restricting them would not really be effective at reducing violent crime rates but would infringe on the rights of tens of millions of people.

Surely there is a more effective alternative (or alternatives) to reducing violent crime rates that doesn't involve banning the most commonly owned types of firearms in the country. I, for one, would be open to discussing such alternatives, but banning commonly-owned but rarely-used-in-crime guns seems a bit extreme and pointless.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

for the purposes of gun rights crowd they instantly become crminally negligent and no longer count toward the 'responsible law abiding' gun owner crowd...it is kinda like the 'no true scotsman' thing, but with guns and a-holes.

t3knomanser:ArkAngel: The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally.

Again, we're addressing an externality. I would imagine such a tax would actually be absurdly low, on a per fire-arm basis. The purpose isn't to punish gun owners, it's to address the negative externality created by having weapons commonly available. The tax serves two purposes- it depresses demand for firearms (thus shrinking the negative externality) and creates a fund that can be used to fund law enforcement and first responders, as well as firearm safety programs (reducing the risks).

ArkAngel: Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired

Most used in accidents, suicides, and domestic violence are legally acquired. Again, on an actuarial basis, I imagine the costs to the user would be very low. This has the added purpose of creating a financial incentive to reduce the risks associated with firearms.

you will find that no rule, regulation or law, either federal private industry (insurance) or otherwise implemented will pass the test of the gun rights supporter. anything less than 'status quo' or 'more guns' in unacceptable for an infinite number a reasons.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Bravo!

the small dicked guys are rallying! DIA is leading the battle cry! stay proud, if not prominent, lil bros!

ArkAngel:. And how would the insurance work? Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. If they will not or can not acquire them legally, what is the likelihood that they will insure them?

Lando Lincoln:Seriously. The 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee that we can hunt. Stop trying to insinuate this.

Well then, if it was to guarantee that the Federal government had to behave itself or those gun-toting farmers would rise up and overthrow it, then it's 100% obsolete and should be rewritten or eliminated because I don't care how many modified AR-15's you might have, you will be bloody chunks of meat if you try that. For that matter, if it was to provide the Federal government a pool of armed civilians that could be called up and formed into a national militia it is obsolete as well, since we now have a very modern, very well armed large army already.

So if it isn't for hunting and any other reason it exists is obsolete, then why are there so many people ready to foam at the mouth to defend it word for word?

dittybopper:Somaticasual: So, basically, it soups up your bump-firing? Wouldn't one of those crank devices be a little cheaper and practical?

Yep. You can buy them for $23 at Cabelas.

Still seems like an incredibly bad idea for a firearm not designed to take the abuse.

For those who don't know: The differences between military and civilian rifles are sometimes more than skin deep. This is done at both the behest of the government and by civilian manufacturers. The government doesn't want rifles easily converted, the gun makers change materials and parts to suit the civilian market demands.

The gas extraction process is pretty violent and heating up a semi like an auto (when there are different tolerances and often different materials) is just tempting fate.

/Seen a few bolts and pins snap this year just from regular use./I suspect people who use bump fire stocks will be paying for more than just the stock itself after a while.

simkatu:No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

I'm from Kansas. My family has hunted for years. I own over 50 firearms myself. We have over 6000 acres of land that people hunt on every year. We have hunting lodges that house hundreds of hunters every season that come to hunt game. In the last 30 years, not a single hunter has ever come to hunt game and brought an AR-15 as their weapon of choice. None of them has ever brought a magazine that holds 30 rounds..

What about an AR-10? I imagine it would work quite well for hunting. And you don't have to load 30 rounds into that mag if you don't want to.

Rik01:I used to be a courier in another city. I'd arrive early, as manager, to open up the station. It wasn't unusual to find a spent shell or two in the parking lot. Sometimes I could find where they hit the cement walls. They were fired from at least a mile away.

So people would fire at your building from a mile away, and then they would drive up to the building to drop off the shells for you to find? That's awefully nice of them.

In the same city I worked in a psychiatric institution on the outskirts of a high crime area. Every New Years Eve we had to keep the patients confined to the inner rooms, away from the windows because it sounded like a war out there at night. We could hear spent shells hitting the roof.

So they were in an airplane above you, or would they scoop up handfuls of spent shells from the ground and throw them up on your roof?

Surpheon:Lenny_da_Hog: They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car,

What happened to the arguement that the majority of guns used to kill people are stolen? Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?

Has that been confirmed?Just maybe there were in fact locked up and he tortured the combination out of her.

Psycat:Ever watch one of those old Tom & Jerry cartoons where Tom and Jerry are so intent on battling each other that Butch the Dog can smack them in the head with a fireplace poker, leaving comic cat- and mouse-shaped dents, and Tom & Jerry are so single-minded in their battle that they don't realize they've suffered what would be a fatal head wound outside of Toontown?

That's exactly what Fark is when a couple of guys go at it in a tiresome flame war--I'm not mentioning names for now. I could waltz in, crack some corny Borscht-Belt jokes, detonate an atomic bomb, [blogs.scientificamerican.com image 475x378], or show a penis-shaped gun, and you squareheads here would keep up their endless penis-compensation accusations ad infinitum.

Surpheon:duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions

Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.

There are people that say we need to exterminate entire groups of people, and their followers believe that, and this has been responsible for hate crimes that have killed more than 20 people last year alone. So I guess by your logic we should not have the freedom of speech. People have been voted in to office that have committed crimes, sometimes starting wars and killing many innocent civilians. We should therefor now have the right to vote, either. People have smuggled bombs in to places and succeeded because of their 4th amendment rights. I guess we should do away with that too. Drunk driving kills thousands of people every year, so I guess prohibition should be reinstated as well. Oh look, now that we've followed your logic to it's logical conclusion, we discover that all freedom comes with risks, and to keep everyone safe from themselves we must then take away all freedoms. You know, for the children.

Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Fallacy #2: This add-on lets you shoot 900 round a minute.

Truth: You have to reload and will fire significantly less. 100 rounds in 7 seconds = 857 rounds a minute, so it is a bold faced lie off the top. Adding 20 seconds to reload would put a max at 571,

Fallacy #3: The shooter retains complete aim and control when shooting in this fashion.

Truth: There are other recoil suppressing type devices that could possibly enable that, but in general it isn't going to work that way. Using this attachment is like juggling chainsaws. At any moment it could spin around your finger instead of bumping against it and blow your own head off.

Could someone potentially go into a crowded area with it and cause a bit of damage by shooting wildly and randomly? Sure.

Surpheon:duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions

Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.

Because as we all know, crazy people never kill others if they don't have guns, right?

Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Maybe that was true back in the 1700's, but it isn't any longer. Also, the Constitution didn't mandate a standing army; instead, we had a "militia" made up of armed civilians who could be called up to defend the country. Didn't make much sense to have an unarmed militia, now did it?

Except now, we've got two modern and large armies (USArmy and Marines), so the 2nd half of my statement is no longer needed. As for your "truth" statement, it's obsolete now. You can no more "protect your rights" by killing government agents then you could overthrow the government with your weapons.

So, if the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and any other reason why it exists no longer makes sense, it is no longer needed and should be either abolished or modified to make more sense.